Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2422 WP No. 56138 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 56138 OF 2016 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
KALAPPA, S/O LATE UDEDAKALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT LINGAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBALI, GUBBI TALUK - 572 219. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANOHAR B.K, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. KALAPPA S/O ANNAYAPPA, DEAD BY LRS
1(A). SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE KALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT LINGAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KADABA HOBALI, GUBBI TALUK - 572 219. 1(B). KANTHARAJU, S/O LATE KALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT LINGAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KADABA HOBALI, GUBBI TALUK - 572 219. Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2422 WP No. 56138 of 2016
1(C). KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE KALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT LINGAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KADABA HOBALI, GUBBI TALUK - 572 219. 1(D). SMT. KALAVATHY, S/O LATE KALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT LINGAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBIT TALUK - 572 219. 1(E). SMT. SUJATHA, S/O LATE KALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT LINGAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK - 572 219. 2. KALAPPA, S/O LATE PUTTAPPA, DEAD BY LRS,
2(A). PRAKASH, S/O LATE KALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT K.G.TEMPLE, KADABA HOBALI, GUBBI TALUK - 572 219. 2(B). PUTTAPPA S/O LATE KALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT K.G.TEMPLE, KADABA HOBALI, GUBBI TALUK - 572 219. 2(C). JAI SHANKAR S/O LATE KALAPPA,
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2422 WP No. 56138 of 2016
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT K.G.TEMPLE, KADABA HOBALI, GUBBI TALUK - 572 219. 2(D). KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE KALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT K.G.TEMPLE, KADABA HOBALI, GUBBI TALUK - 572 219. 2(E). KALAMMA, D/O LATE KALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT UDDE HOSAKERE, CHELUR HOBALI, GUBBI TALUK - 572 216. 2(F). RATNAMMA, D/O LATE KALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT K.G.TEMPLE, KADABA HOBALI, GUBBI TALUK - 572 219. DEAD BY LRS. 2(F)(1) SMT. SUJATHA, W/O LATE BHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO. LINGAMMANAHALLI PALYA, K.G.TEMPLE, KADABA HOBALI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DIST - 572 216. 2(G). JAGADAMBA, D/O LATE KALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NARASAPURA, HEBBUR HOBALI, TUMKUR TALUK - 572 120. - 4 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2422 WP No. 56138 of 2016
3. NARASAMMA, W/O LATE UDEDAKALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT LINGAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KADABA HOBALI, GUBBI TALUK - 572 219. 4.
SHIVARAJU, S/O LATE UDEDAKALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT LINGAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KADABA HOBALI, GUBBI TALUK - 572 219. 5. JAYASHANKAR S/O LATE UDEDAKALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT LINGAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KADABA HOBALI, GUBBI TALUK - 572 219. 6. SHIVAKUMARI D/O LATE UDEDAKALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT SIDDANAYAKANAPALYA, HEBBUR HOBALI, TUMKUR TALUK - 572 120. 7. KALAPPA, S/O MUGANNA, MAJOR, R/AT KANAKANAPALYA, JAYANAGAR 1ST BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 001. 8. PUTTAIAH, S/O MUDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT LINGAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBALI, GUBBI TALUK - 572 219. - 5 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2422 WP No. 56138 of 2016
9. SIDDARAMAKKA W/O LATE HUCHAKARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT LINGAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBALI, GUBBI TALUK - 572 219. 10. KANTHARAJU, S/O LATE HUCHAKARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT LINGAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBALI, GUBBI TALUK - 572 219. 11. KALAMMA D/O LATE HUCHAKARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT 34TH STAGE, BANASHANKARI, BANGALORE - 560 085. 12. GANGAMMA, D/O LATE HUCHAKARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT CHEERANAKATTE, MADALKERE HOBALI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 527. 13. KATHYAYINI D/O LATE HUCHAKARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT KOPPA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBALI, TIPTUR TALUK - 572 201. 14. KARIYANNA, S/O KARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, R/AT LINGAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KADABA HOBALI, GUBBI TALUK - 572 219. - 6 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2422 WP No. 56138 of 2016
15. BHADRAIAH S/O KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT K.G.TEMPLE, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK - 572 219. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.
M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (A TO E) AND R2 (A TO E);
VIDE ORDER DATED 23.07.2024, R2(G) HELD SUFFICIENT;
R2(F)(1) SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 11.12.2020, R3 TO R15 ARE DELETED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 03.01.2024 PETITION IS DISMISSED AGAINST R3 TO R15;
VIDE ORDER DATED 19.01.2024 PETITION AGAINST DECEASED R2(F) IS DISMISSED AS ABATED)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN R.A.NO.222/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE [SENIOR DIVISION] AND CJM, GUBBI, AND ALSO THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.99/1992 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE [JUNIOR DIVISION] & JMFC, GUBBI AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
- 7 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2422 WP No. 56138 of 2016
ORAL ORDER
The present petition is filed aggrieved by the orders dated 01.10.2016 passed in R.A.No.222/2006 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Gubbi.
2. The plaintiff had filed the suit seeking a declaration that they are the archakas of the temple and the said suit came to be dismissed, against that Regular Appeal is filed. During the pendency of the Regular Appeal, the institution is notified by the government as per the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act. At that point of time, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of CPC seeking permission to withdraw the original suit, wherein it is stated that the suit suffers from formal and technical defect and the applicant has to seek the remedy before the Tahsildar, Gubbi or the AC, Tumkur regarding the rights of archakship under charitable and religious endowments act due to the changes occurred in the facts and circumstances after having filed the regular appeal
- 8 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2422 WP No. 56138 of 2016
and hence, they sought liberty to withdraw the suit reserving liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. It is the case that formal and technical defect cannot be cured by way of amendment before the Court and no harm will be caused to the other side. The Court by
order impugned had allowed the application and observed that the plaintiffs are at liberty to withdraw suit and to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action and no hardship will be caused to the respondents. The respondents are at liberty to agitate the grievance before the trial Court for performance of pooja at the temple. The Court also observed that no doubt, the appellants could have filed this application before the trial Court at the earliest stage or before the appellate Court at the earliest stage, but that does not mean that the application should not be entertained. As such, the said delay can be condoned by imposing reasonable cost to compensate the respondents and accordingly, they were permitted to withdraw the application on payment of cost of ₹5,000/- to the respondents.
- 9 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2422 WP No. 56138 of 2016
3.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner submits that the Court ought not to have allowed the application. He submits that the Court had given them a liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, which is not permissible and further the application is filed by one of the plaintiffs, when the plaintiffs are 2 in number. Even on that count also, the Court ought not to have allowed the application.
4.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents / plaintiffs submits that when the institution is notified under the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, the Civil Court will not have jurisdiction and necessarily they have to approach the authorities under the Endowment Act. As such, they have sought for permission and the Court had rightly granted permission. He submits that there is no illegality with the said order.
5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. The undisputed facts
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2422 WP No. 56138 of 2016
in this case are that the institution in respect of which the petitioners are seeking their rights of archakathvam is a notified temple under the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act. Section 75 of the Act bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Now either the
order that is passed by the Trial Court or the Appellate Court or any order that is likely to be passed is without jurisdiction. The technical grounds that are raised by the
learned counsel for the defendant, this Court is not inclined to go into as the Courts have to look at the substantial interest of both the parties. But at the same time, the liberty that is sought is to file a fresh suit even that also cannot be maintained as he cannot file a suit but he can initiate the appropriate proceedings before the endowment authorities. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
1. The
order dated 01.10.2016 passed in R.A.No.222/2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Gubbi is modified. The plaintiff is
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2422 WP No. 56138 of 2016
permitted to withdraw O.S.No.99/1992 and also withdraw the appeal with liberty to approach the Endowment Department with regard to their rights to archakathvam of Kalaghattamma Temple.
2. The defendants are always at liberty to raise their grounds.
3. As far as the costs that are imposed by the trial Court this Court is not interfering.
3. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
4. All IAs., in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30 CT: BHK